DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a maximum strength orientation in a {110} pole figure of the texture.” The limitation does not clearly set forth the conditions of the measurement and required relationship. As a result, it is also unclear if the term “strength” is drawn to a value/measurement of the recited pole figure or instead drawn to an orientation or texture resulting in the highest strength property (e.g. mechanical strength). Claims 2-6 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 8353992).
With respect to Claim 1, Sugiura teaches a steel plate (i.e. sheet) with a composition, in mass%, as follows (col. 3, ln. 25-60):
Claim 1
Sugiura
C
0.05-0.25
0.005-0.20
Si
0.2-2.0
2.5
Mn
1.2-3.0
0.1-3.0
P
≤ 0.030
0.15
S
≤ 0.050
0.015
Al
0.01-0.55
0.15
N
≤ 0.0100
0.010
Ti
0.010-0.250
0.002-0.15
Fe
Balance with impurities
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Other
Cr: 0-0.5
Ni: 0-0.5
Cu: 0-0.5
Nb: 0-0.04
V: 0-0.15
Zr: 0-0.15
Mo: 0-0.15
W: 0-0.15
Sn, Sb and Te: 0-0.1 total
Ca, Mg, REM: 0-0.005 total
B: 0-0.005
Nb: 0.005-0.10
Mo: 0.01-1.0*
Cr: 0.01-3.0*
W: 0.01-3.0*
Cu: 0.01-3.0*
Ni: 0.01-3.0*
Ca: 0.0005-0.1000*
REM: 0.0005-0.1000*
V: 0.001-0.100*
B: 0.0005-0.0100*
*optional element
Compositional ranges including zero (e.g. the claimed ranges of P, S, N, Cr, Ni, CU, Nb, V, Zr, Mo, W, Sn, Sb, Te, Ca, Mg, REM, and B) are interpreted as optional elements.
Thus, Sugiura teaches a steel with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly required ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Sigiura further teaches wherein an X-ray random intensity ratio at a position within 1/6 of the sheet thickness is 5 or less, deemed to meet the instantly claimed “a random intensity ratio of a texture in a near-surface portion of the steel sheet is 8.0 or less.” (col. 3, ln. 32-37). It is noted that the limitation merely requires any random intensity ratio of a texture in a near-surface portion to meet the claimed range.
Additionally, Sigiura teaches tailoring the texture of the steel sheet, wherein the reference teaches that the {100}<001> and {110}<001> orientations lower the rolling direction Young’s modulus and that a vibration process may be applied to change the texture of the sheet, in particular in the surface layer. (col. 8, ln. 15-62). Sigiura teaches increasing the rolling direction Young’s modulus by controlling the texture of the steel such that a sum of a maximum value of the X-ray random intensity ratio of {110}<111> to {110}<112> orientation group and a X-ray random intensity ratio of the {211}<111> orientation is 5 or more. (col. 3, ln. 37-41; col. 8, ln. 50-62). Therefore, Sigiura is deemed to teach conditions for tailoring and optimizing a maximum strength orientation in a {110} pole figure of the texture and its angle relative to a rolling direction (and it follows, a direction normal to the rolling direction) with known results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an angle, as instantly claimed, from the disclosure of SIgiura to control the desired mechanical properties of the steel sheet, for example, obtaining a desired Young’s modulus for a particular application. See also MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, Sigiura teaches optional contents of Cr, Ni, Cu, Nb, V, Mo, W, Ca, REM, and B, overlapping the respectively claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 8353992), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Fujita (US 2013/0153091).
With respect to Claim 4, Sigiura teaches a number of optional alloying elements, such as Cr, Ni, CU, Nb, V, Mo, W, Ca, and REM (see rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6 above); however, the reference is silent as to a minor addition of SN, Sb and/or Te in the recited total of Claim 4.
Fujita teaches a steel sheet with a composition substantially overlapping that of Sigiura and the instant claims, wherein one or two or more elements selected from “Ti, Nb, B, Mg, REM, Ca, Mo, Cr, V. W, Cu, Ni, Co, Sn, Zr, and As” may be added to enhance mechanical strength through precipitation strengthening or to control inclusions or refine precipitates for improving local deformability. (para. 21, 185). Fujita teaches the addition of 0.0001-0.2 mass% Sn. (para. 188). Thus, Fujita is deemed to teach the substitutability and/or combination of Sn with elements such as Cr, Ni, Cu, Nb, V, Mo, W, Ca, and REM for the same purpose(s).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steel sheet of Sigiura to include or to substitute 0.0001-0.2 mass% of Sn, with or in place of one or more of Cr, Ni, Cu, Nb, V, Mo, W, Ca, and REM, as taught by Fujita, in order to enhance the mechanical strength of the sheet through precipitation strengthening or to control inclusions or refine precipitates for improving local deformability. The substitution of one element for another, with substantially the same purpose, function, and effect would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12264374 and US 12060631 respectively drawn to related patents teaching overlapping composition, but silent as to the instant claim 1 limitation drawn to texture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735